User talk:Werieth/201306

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talkback

Hello, Werieth. You have new messages at Nford24's talk page.
Message added 08:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nford24 (Want to have a chat?) 22:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-free image usage

Hi Werieth,

You were right about the usage of Olympiacos emblem. It cannot be used in templates, only in articles. The information in "Purpose of use" section has been changed. You can remove the template. Thanking you in advance, Gtrbolivar (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Baseball in Puerto Rico

Werieth,

You did not respond to my last entry (5/31/13) re the Baseball in Puerto Rico photos. Here is it, below. What do you think of allowing 3 of the 7 images you removed? (the 3 are discussed below, in my talk entry of 5/31/13). Thank you.

  • For all of them, I would say that they illustrate the specific material in the article. Each image (including every ballplayer) corresponds exactly to the text, with no commercial infringement or negative usage of the images. The three images I believe are especially pertinent are:
File:LBPRC.png -- because an entire section is devoted to it. The article is about baseball in Puerto Rico, and this is the logo of their league.
File:Satchel Paige.jpg -- because Satchel Paige's participation was a historic event in Puerto Rican baseball.
File:Criollos de Caguas logo.png -- because it illustrates one of the major teams, and there is no commercial infringement or negative usage of the image.

Nelsondenis248 (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

From what you are saying the images themselves are not important, they just illustrates something on the page that refers to the image. Also in each of those points you could just link to said other articles and not need the files. Werieth (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Keep up the good work cleaning up those NFCC violations! Technical 13 (talk) 02:56, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Spaces in templates

Hallo, I wonder what your basis is for edits like this, where you add spaces either side of every pipe and equals sign in a template. Is there any rule, guideline or consensus, or is it just your personal preference? If there is any rule or guideline, then the people responsible for the "cite" button should be told, as that button generates citations without spaces. I'm genuinely curious about this question - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates#Spaces_in_templates_such_as_.7B.7Btl.7Ccite_journal.7D.7D, where I raised it a few days ago, before your edit. PamD 12:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no hard, fast rule. I do it for readability. The human mind automatically breaks text at a space. Trying to read a large block of complex text without them just gives me a headache if I do it enough. Similar to trying to read The Cambridge University Reading test Its do-able just makes things harder. Werieth (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of fair use image

Hi. You deleted this image (File:Crozier, Edinburgh from Salisbury Crags.jpg) from my sandbox with this edit (as well as, rather oddly changing a number of my references). The image is in fact not in copyright and is now on the Commons with the same name. I wonder, do you know a way in which I can bypass the fair use version and access the Commons version and get around this problem?--SabreBD (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I have adjusted the licensing issues so it wont be an issue again. AWB, the tool I used for removing the file cleaned up the references. It uses Named references to prevent duplication and excessive reference lists. Werieth (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks. I assume that means I can now use the file again in personal space. Much appreciated. In the use of AWB, it may be difficult to turn off, but it is probably not appropriate in a user sandbox, where there is work in progress. Thanks again.--SabreBD (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hi! I was just wondering why my page was altered without my knowledge/consent? I understand there was some issue with the format, but what are the specifics here? Thanks. CarringtonEnglish T C 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Several points, Please remove the Flag icon from your signiture per WP:SIG, two please fix the formatting. Three File:Red Rose (Socialism).svg is a non-free file and per WP:NFCC#9 it cannot be used on your user page, and that is why it was removed.
  • [[User:CarringtonEnglish|'''<font face="Vivaldi" size= "2" color="darkblue">CarringtonEnglish]] [[User Talk:CarringtonEnglish|T]] [[Special:Contributions/CarringtonEnglish|C</font>''']]

Werieth (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been changed. I decided to go with something a little different. Thank you, though. Let me know if there's anything else. CarringtonEnglishTalk 04:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Tiger Brands

Hello, a quick question regarding images of products. I just want to get your thoughts on photographs of products with regards to whether or not they should be uploaded under WP:NFC? This issue seems to be an ambiguous one with some people, such as my self, uploading it under WP:NFC licence and others uploading them under a creative commons licence.

Additionally I am going to re-add the picture of Jungle oats boxes as I feel that it does adhere to WP:NFC#8 but will for the mean time not re-add the others. Additionally I maintain that all images that you removed adhere to WP:NFC#8 by significantly increasing readers' understanding of the company and its staple of brands by illustrating those brands in the same way other pages such as Quaker Oats Company. It seems arbitrary that some companies, most notably Western ones, such as Quaker Oats can illustrate their products whilst equally well known brands in their own countries, such as Jungle Oats, can not.--Discott (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Lets break this down by image. You cited as a example page. It contains exactly two non-free files. The main logo and a single product example. Tiger Brands has 7.
  • File:Lucky Star Fish.jpg
  • File:TNT popcorn.jpg
  • File:Jungle oats enegry bar.jpg
  • File:Energade bottles.jpg
  • File:Koo can.jpg
    • Those are all hidden in collapsed columns just listing the associated brands. Thus failing WP:NFCC#8 second clause. See also WP:NFLIST and WP:NFTABLE
      • That is what I thought your concern was and I am not so sure of how important the issue of whether or not it should be treated is or if it does in fact means that it qualifies as a fail of WP:NFCC#8. Perhaps this is an issue that we should get other opinions on or find some precedence?
        • WP:NFLIST and WP:NFTABLE are in fact fairly clear about not allowing this usage. Werieth (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
          • So if I were to get rid of the drop down so that the text was clearly shown that would make it acceptable?--Discott (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • File:Koo Logo.jpg
  • File:Jungle Oats 1930 & 2010 box.png
    • There is zero sourced cometary about either part of that image. Without sourced cometary how can it pass #8?
      • I am a bit confused, there seems to be source cometary about both parts. Perhaps I was not clear when I wrote it. I have now made some adjustments to clarify on the photograph.--Discott (talk) 11:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
        • For me the file is floating under the infobox next to the sections labeled "Adcock Ingram Critical Care" and "Brands" at that point its not being referenced by the text. Werieth (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
          • Please don't take this the wrong way but I find that a bit pedantic.--Discott (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
            • Talking a look at the article text there is one sentence about Jungle Oats Tiger Brand's first product was a breakfast oatmeal brand called Jungle Oats There are zero sources about any visual design, and nothing about the changes in the 2010 version. That just isnt enough to meet the requirements of WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
              • I am not so sure of that interpretation of and feel that it is an overly strict and possibly pedantic interpretation of WP:NFCC#8. I have no objections to adding information and references to the design in the article however I do want to discuss this seemly different interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 that we both have. I would also point out that the article on Twinkies also has images of packaging prominently displayed with no information in the text on the visual design of the product. Indeed one could compile quite a list of product related articles where this is the case. I am trying to eliminate the possibility of this being the result of a Wikipedia systematic bias which so often afflicts Africa related articles.--Discott (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
                • Its not any kind of bias, taking a look at WP:NFCC#8 it only contains two non-free files, which are of the packaging of subject of the article. Tiger Brands is about a packaging company. Having their primary logo is all that is needed to meet the visual identification usage. If the individual sub brands are notable then they should have their own article where said file can be used. Lets further examine Twinkies, its parent organization Hostess Brands has two non-free files, the primary logo and one that I will be re-tagging as failing commons:COM:TOO. When using a non-free file you should ask yourself why must I include this file? and Can the reader understand the article without this file? Right now Tiger Brands does not need File:Jungle Oats 1930 & 2010 box.png, it is just being used for eye candy. Werieth (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
                  • That's a fair point.--Discott (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
As for the free files on the example page, I have noticed that some of them are pictures of products. Does this mean, as I asked above, that I can resubmit these files under a free licence since I took the photographs?--Discott (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
No, due to copyright issues. See commons:Commons:Derivative works. File:Quaker-Oats-ChocChip-Granola.jpg is just that of raw food, and cannot be copyrighted as that particular food stuff fails commons:COM:TOO (there was no human input in the visual design of the food, it is just the result of mixing ingredients together with a non-uniform result). Werieth (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. These pictures are most similar to File:Quaker7297.JPG which seems to still have an unclear status in this regard.--Discott (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

File:AustralianFederalPoliceFlag.png

Thought your summary edit allowed the flag to be posted back on the flags page. KiwiDean talk 16:37 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Did you also use the account User:Expatkiwi? Werieth (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm one and the same person. While the primary account is still locked, using this one was the only option open to me. In any case, I thought that the issue stopping the pic from being utilized had been solved by you by the editing of the summary. What did I miss? KiwiDean (talk) 18:45 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Ive tried to help you, since you refuse to listen I wash my hands of this as I have done as much as I can to try to help you and you refuse to listen. I thought I had made some progress but I guess not. Ive filed a WP:SPI case. Werieth (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
I misunderstood, that's all. Sorry about that. I wanted to start with a new leaf. You had mentioned that you wanted to get the Expatkiwi account unlocked, but that others were keeping the account locked. Also, you had responded to a request of mine to make the submissions legal. So, by using this account, I wanted to see about making the other submission summaries the same as your edit, thinking that what you had done would have cleared the legal hurdle and allow the flags to be displayed. It had nothing to do with trying to annoy you, or ignoring what you said. KiwiDean (talk) 18:56 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at bullet point #4. The flag will never be acceptable on the list page. Werieth (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hidden text: Non-free images

Greetings, Werieth. I respectfully ask that you not delete hidden text such as the infobox image field placeholder "Only free-content images are allowed for depicting living people -- see WP:NONFREE." In high-traffic topic areas, such NFL football player bios, such hidden text messages help reduce the problem of copyrighted photos and other images inserted by inexperienced users who are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's copyright policy and strong preference for free-use images. Thanks for your understanding. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

3RR penalty

reverted vandalism, no build is destroyed here in film noir, correct the build, do not delete content, global article not restricted to hollywood alone, if image is an issue, delete it, do not delete the content, already reverted by two other users. Murrallli (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

See WP:3RR##3RR_exemptions#5 Enforcing WP:NFCC is exempt from 3RR. Werieth (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • check the content, this time If u abuse me again, will take this issue to administrators notice Murrallli (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
    I did, you re-added the file, I warned, and reverted. Pretty standard practice. Werieth (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have not added any image file, If u abuse me again, will report to admin Murrallli (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

this is where you inserted the file, and this is where you re-added the file after I warned you for your previous edit. You subsequently removed the file in these edits. The warning I placed on your talk page was not abuse, It was in fact a correctly placed warning template. If you disagree I will be glad to let an administrator re-explain why my actions follow policy and yours do not. Werieth (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Werieth. You have new messages at SoapFan12's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Robert McGinnis

I don't usually argue when my edits are (rarely) reverted. But I must protest this time. I restored the gallery to Robert McGinnis for the following reasons: The cited policy (WP:NFG) is not strict, stating in fact that use of a gallery "should be considered on a case-by-case basis." This is one of those cases, I assert, where the use of a gallery is the perfect way to illustrate a time sequence of the subject's output. Without the gallery, anyone wanting to know about his work would need to search around quite a bit, whereas five gallery items tells the story quite well. Most casual readers, I suggest, could not find these images nearly as readily as an editor can: that's why it is useful to put them in the article. Verne Equinox (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is little third party sources that back your claims. There needs to be sourced critical commentary that supports those files in order to pass WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Limerick F.C.

Why are you deleting the pictures from the article Limerick FC? The Non-free media information and use rationale for Limerick FC is explained for each file. Corcs999 (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

They dont meet WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8 Werieth (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Akihiko Saito

Hello Werieth. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Akihiko Saito, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Beach Soccer images

Sorry, I didn't know about it, my purpose was just to improve the pages of beach soccer. I won't do that again, have a nice day. 15:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


Fairfield Stags men's ice hockey

I don't know whether or not the image used for the page is unable to be used, but I used the same image that is presented on the Fairfield Stags page. I assumed that any image already appearing on Wikipedia has been cleared to be used. If I was wrong I apologize. ;PensRule11385 Talk 13:54, 18 June 2013 (CST)

Please review WP:NFC and WP:NFURG Werieth (talk) 18:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your recent deletions at the Photography workshop...

{{trout}}

Werieth, when you cite guidelines, please, read —and strive to comprehend— them in full. This includes following links to "exemptions".

"Exemptions from non-free content policy are made for the use of non-free content on certain administrative, non-article space pages as necessary to creating or managing the encyclopedia, specifically for those that are used to manage questionable non-free content. Those pages that are exempt are listed in Category:Wikipedia non-free content criteria exemptions." —bold italics added for emphasis

While I didn't see the Wikipedia:Graphics labs listed explicitly in the exemptions category, it seems reasonable to infer that this was simply an oversight as part of the work we do involves addressing files with {{Non-free reduce}} tags.

Werieth, please gives us a bit more consideration in the future. Try to be more careful —full-of-care— as it gets difficult to work on images when pettifog comes rolling in.

:  }

Thank you for your time, attention, and consideration, --Kevjonesin (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I should report you for NPA, my actions are 100% in policy. Graphics Lab isnt exempt from WP:NFCC#9. If think it requires an exemption please file a request for such exemption. Werieth (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Already did so. (Filed a request.)
Wikipedia doesn't have "policy" it has "guidelines" which are meant to be considered in context. It's part of the 5 pillars as I recall.
Please consider the context of the Wikipepedia:Graphics lab/Photography workshop. What it is and what it does. I understand that you likely meant well and were probably seeing yourself as heroically defending the wiki against corruption and copyright lawyers, but please note that you did so in a unilateral non-consensus manner without expressing any recognition of the fact that the images were being used to facilitate their being edited to better meet (main space) article guidelines.
This struck me as silly, so I applied an established template for expressing such. And followed it with details of why I had done so. Personally, I tend to appreciate it when someone points out that I've taken something too seriously (i.e. been 'silly'). For me, it goes with being a mere mortal. Human and imperfect with feet of clay. But perhaps you're different.
Please, please, please, give some more consideration to context and to the editors working out of the Photography workshop. The file links which you deleted were being actively used to improve the state of the wiki. You didn't even bother to fill the hole you left upon removing them. Nor did you ask anyone for help or advice in doing so. How do you think that comes across to those with time and energy invested in actively working to improve images at the workshop?
p.s.— An alternate approach: In hindsight, perhaps one could have questioned the files' usage —and made suggestions— on a relevant Photography workshop talk page rather than summarily and unilaterally deleting them. --Kevjonesin (talk)
Take a look at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria This page documents a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations. bolding for emphasis. WP:NFCC#9 which I referenced isn't negotiable, you do not have the option to ignore it. Using the {{trout}} to someone who you are not familiar with, who knows policy and has applied it correctly is extremely rude and condescending. The use of {{trout}} is reserved for those actions that everyone knows they shouldn't do, IE Blocking Jimbo. Review WP:NFCC and the associated WP:NFC page, and please remove your foot from your mouth when done. Werieth (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Werieth, please review WP:NFG, i.e. #Non-free image use in galleries or tables the guideline —preceding the "exemptions" subsection— which explicitly states that usage "should be considered on a case-by-case basis". I didn't see any community consideration and consensus being applied, what I saw was a lone editor drop in to make a sloppy (left holes) arbitrary unilateral deletion leaving it for others to clean up his mess. In the future, please consult with the editors active on the Photography workshop page before making local 'policy' decisions on our behalf. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please review policy and take the time to actually read it, instead of cherry picking phrases. WP:NFCC#9 isnt something decided on a case by case basis. Non-free files can only be used in articles. Period. Werieth (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, for suggesting that the guideline about posting non-free images in a <gallery> might be relevant to posting non-free images in a <gallery>. How presumptuous of me. Obviously you are considering the greater interest of the wiki by sweeping in and removing thumbnails being temporarily presented in the "Anonymous requests" display on the Photo workshop page. Presented there so that they may be noticed by Wikipedia graphists and edited to better comply with the very guidelines that have been tossed around. I can't imagine the tragic consequences which might have ensued had you not so quickly stepped in to rescue us. Clearly it was a crisis of dire emergency and there was no time to consider other editors active on the page. So sorry to have questioned your authority over our wiki. Goodbye for now, --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Wow, you lack of understanding is shocking, I have not referenced WP:NFG at any point in my discussion. I in fact referenced WP:NFCC#9, the requirement that non-free media only be used in articles. The Graphics Lab isn't an article and thus had the files removed from that location. I have removed them from user boxes, and countless other pages that are non-compliant over time. When using a non-free file on wikipedia, each usage must meet all 10 points of WP:NFCC. Something that you seem to refuse to understand. Your response was extremely rude and insulting. I have done my best to try to help you, but its obvious at this point you are either unwilling or unable to understand the ramifications and complexity of copyright and the usage of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 22:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Cook Islands National Football Team

Hi Werieth, I noticed you removed the logo from this article as it did not have a FUR. Am I right in assuming that this was because althoug there was a FUR for the National football association article, as a non-free logo, a FUR was needed for the national team article as well? If so I believe I have corrected this. If you can confirm that would be good as I think there might be other teams that don't have the required FURs and I would like to correct them too. Thanks. Fenix down (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

{{Austin}}

This edit broke {{Austin}}'s syntax in such a way that its rendering didn't have an editable link or any title whatsoever.   — C M B J   08:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, careful not to bite people as you did above — taking that kind of tone with a fellow editor is not good mojo, even if they're being completely reckless and making a total fool of themselves, which Kevjonesin was not.   — C M B J   09:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry about that, human error. Ive tried to be nice, its difficult when you are repeatedly insulted and ignored. Werieth (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Based on the sarcasm, trouting, etc that you yourself used Kev, I doubt that comment was at all about you - when one starts out on the offensive, one will get bitten, and one should expect such (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
p.s.— FYI, there's a parallel thread at the non-free content talk page. And a relevant post on the Photo workshop talk page as well --Kevjonesin (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • BWilkins, I think you may have been confused by an out of sequence insertion. Look at the history or re-parse via the time stamps. As to bite-breeds-bite, and such, yes, I realize now that this was likely not the best time to have used a {{trout}} as along with the attached criticism it seems to have conveyed an edge beyond flippant fun. At this point I suspect that User:Werieth wouldn't have appreciated it in any context regardless. Oops, sorry about that, feet of clay. I still think it was a better option than any number of other ways in which I could have responded to someone coming by and punching a coupla' holes in the Photo workshop display and then riding off into the sunset without expressing nary a word of concern for those affected. I thought I was actually being fairly restrained considering. User:Begoon provided a coupla' links on the workshop page which show that past editors responding to such have been much more colorful. Many other responses might well have started with the letters W-T-F and gone on from there. --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • That is where our opinions differ, just about anything more severe and I would have taken you to ANI for CIVIL issues. I often have users who do not understand policy coming to my talk page with questions. A good example of how to approach someone with a question when you are unsure of the policy behind the action. You then proceeded to make a claim that wikipedia doesn't have policies and just guidelines, which I then had to show you was incorrect. You then choose to cherry pick wording from a section that had zero reason why the file was removed. I removed per WP:NFCC#9 mainspace only requirement, and you came back with a statement about how it should be considered on a case by case basis because it was a gallery. (Argument doesn't hold water). My impression about you is that you are relatively young, and have little experience dealing with the general public (lack of customer service) so the way you responded was normal for you. However as you get older you will realize that you should temper your approach and that your current method rubs people the wrong way, and most people will interpret it as coming of really rude. Werieth (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I can accept most of that. Sorry for starting off with a snarky spin, Werieth. It's clearly not been very productive and seems to have set both of us off on poor emotional footing.

Clearly how I went about things has influenced the response I've gotten from you. And likely helped set the tone for much of my own following comments as well. Regardless of the merits of points which have been raised.

At present, I've come to realize that although the text of the non-free guidelines allows for some exception to be made, it has become the customary practice to not actually do so. Strict "No non-free outside of main-space" is straightforward, cut-n-dry, and I can see where trying to keep it so might be useful to minimize debate, even if inconvenient and obstructive to Graphics lab editors. A de jure/de facto situation. While I may personally dislike being restrained by such, I can accept it. The rationale is not without foundation.

This still leaves how you chose to communicate this to the editors at the Photography workshop. I'd like to ask you to consider if there may have been a different approach that you could have taken which may have affected the tone of the response which you received. Other ways one may have informed/reminded fellow editors about the non-free content practices presently in use. --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

AN not ANI

Just to let you know, "announcements" (such as backlogs) belong only on WP:AN, and not on WP:ANI (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

User Pages

Thanks for your stringent policing of Wikipedia's fair use policies, Werieth. Your contributions are, I'm certain, exceptionally important in the bigger scheme of things. I only wish that I had as much free time as you so I could also become as exceedingly well versed in every minor guideline and regulation for the project. Unfortunately, as I spend the majority of my time on other pursuits, I do not. Thanks again. El3ctr1csheepz (talk) 07:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Activated debates

Hi Werieth. I invite you to feedback on my views in Talk:List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations, I'm encouraging all involved since January to do so. Adam37 (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Sports team logos

Why do you keep removing sports team logos from certain seasonal pages? Using a sports team logo for a page is completely allowed and done so in tens of thousands of team seasonal articles. You keep citing a guideline that doesn't even apply.

Virtually every single collegiate sports teams that have season by season pages have the unversity's athletic team logo used for that season on the page.

Here is just a small sample of examples:

2010 Ohio State Buckeyes football team

1995 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team

1978 USC Trojans football team

1992–93 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

1991–92 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team

These are 5 articles out of tens of thousands in the exact same manner.

The guideline you cite is completely non-applicable and has to do with one time events having special logos that should be used instead of generic ones, however seasons are not one time events and special logos do not exist for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.172.165 (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

re: File:UIQ 3.1 Screenshot.gif

I don't understand why this image was CSD'd. It is distributed under the Creative Commons license as well, which pretty much invalidates the F3 requirement. I have denied your request --wL<speak·check> 14:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The software isnt released under a CC license. You cannot release the copyright to something you dont own. See Wikipedia:Derivative_works Werieth (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

X-Files images

Just wanted to drop a note here before anything gets blown out of proportion. Those images were added to Colonist (The X-Files) awhile back, and are all used because the alien races discussed are all so visually different and striking that the images are used to illustrate those "discussed in detail in the context of the article body, such as a discussion of the art style, or a contentious element of the work, [rather than] simply provide visual identification of the elements" (WP:NFLISTS). That's why there isn't a copyright violation; the images received critical commentary and discussion of the work in question (generally in the production section) and are thus critical to understanding what the beings look like.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-free files where added to that page as recently as this month. Since you want to edit war Ill take this to WP:NFCR Werieth (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
My bad, I thought the over 3 reverts was the line, not 2. I'm not trying to peeve you off here, I'm just saying that I have a reasonable defense for keeping the images. Can't we just discuss this?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Your "reasonable defense" holds about as much water as a sieve. Werieth (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping it civil, dude.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Please dont take that the wrong way. It just means the argument that you are making is full of holes. If you want when I get a few spare minutes I can list these out in detail and full explanations. Citing WP:NFCC #1,3 & 8. Along with several paragraphs and lengthy examples of why each use violates each point. (PS the holds about as much water as a sieve is a colloquialism and not meant as a personal attack). Werieth (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File issue

Hello,

I have now given a suitable and viable reason why the file of Morley's new Leisure Centre should be uploaded and how it is the only one of it's type. If you do not think that this is a viable reason for the image not to be uploaded, please explain as to why as the reason that I have given is very much a viable reason for it to be uploaded.

Tom 19:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomdaone (talk • contribs)

According to the source of the image the building is already in operation. Thus anyone can go take a photo of it. Werieth (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Bump

:) — This, that and the other (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay Hot-Shot, Okay! source images

It is common to include source artwork in Roy Lichtenstein articles. Why are you coming down on this one. I have reverted your edit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have re-removed the files for failing WP:NFCC#8. You dont need 5 images for two paragraphs. Werieth (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
I am trying hard to bite my tongue, but this is about the most %^&*%^&*%$ reasoning I have seen on WP. Please re-read WP:NFCC#8 (Contextual significance) is the very reason why these images are necessary to understanding the subject matter. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Okay_Hot-Shot.2C_Okay.21_source_images. Please come explain your rationale.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I am no longer following her. Let's meet there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sandboxes

Hi Werieth. Hope this finds you well. Just a thought, but you might want to drop people a note or think about commenting images out rather than removing them from active sandboxes. I'd also appreciate it if you'd avoid running AWB in my sandbox. Thanks, Hiding T 21:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Help with understanding fair use of image

Hi there. I'm wondering if you could give me some advice on gaining a better understanding of when an image may be used fairly to add value to an article; when that image is subject to copyright. For example, there is a copyright image of Robert Askin from the National Archives of Australia of his own page. Yet, when attempts are made to place the same image on other pages that relate to his term as Premier, e.g. NSW state elections held in 1962, 1965, 1968, 1971, and 1973; his image is removed as it is appears to not meet non-free use rationale guidelines. How do you suggest this problem is overcome? Thanks. Rangasyd (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

That is quite simple, WP:NFCC#3 says we need to keep the usage minimal and WP:NFCC#8 states that the image should only be used where required. This means that a photo of Robert Askin can only be used on the article about him. Werieth (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. That really helps. Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Werieth/201306&oldid=1083642912"